Marlborough Lodge

Accommodation is provided in one adapted building over two floors. People had their own room and there was a communal lounge, a dining area and communal bathroom facilities. People could access a garden from the ground floor.

Risks to people's safety were in place and reviewed by management or senior staff. However, some risk management plans did not consider all factors which affect risk. For example, falls risk assessments did not review what medicines people were prescribed which might affect mobility. We also found some risk management plans were generic and not personalised. The provider assured us they would review these areas and identify appropriate improvements.

Monitoring to mitigate risks had improved. People at risk of developing pressure ulcers had air mattresses in place and staff were checking these to make sure they were safe. Some monitoring records had been filled in prior to care being delivered. The provider assured us this was a recording error, and they would give staff further training.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff had been recruited safely and there were enough staff available to respond to people's needs. Staff had time to sit with people and did not appear rushed. People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Staff training had improved, and the induction process had been reviewed to make sure staff were well prepared for their work. Staff told us they were supported and felt able to share their views or raise concerns.

People and relatives told us the service was safe. Staff had been trained on safeguarding and all concerns had been shared with the local authority. Incidents and accidents were recorded, and management reviewed them to identify causes. Any learning was cascaded to staff in handovers, team meetings or

supervisions.

People had choice of meals and were served hot food in a timely way. People and relatives told us the food was good and visitors were welcome to join people for a meal if they wished.

However, we found limited evidence of people being involved in their care and support. The provider told us it was not easy at times for people living with dementia to understand. We have made a recommendation about using different ways to involve people in their care planning.

People were referred to healthcare professionals in a timely way. Staff had a weekly visit from a healthcare professional to review health needs and staff could contact GPs easily. At the time of the inspection, nobody had any wounds needing care from community nurses.

There was a registered manager in post and we were told they were approachable. Quality monitoring systems were in place and helped to identify areas of improvement. The provider had a service improvement plan to log actions for improvements. There had been no complaints since the last inspection and no surveys had been carried out.

The provider had registered with the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) for using CCTV equipment in communal areas. The correct rating for the service was displayed at the service and on the provider's website.

The home was clean, and staff used cleaning schedules to record all areas of the service were cleaned regularly. There was personal protective equipment available, and we observed staff using this in a safe way. Staff followed good infection prevention and control guidelines, for example, staff were not wearing inappropriate jewellery on their fingers.